4.
In relationship to myself, the SPLC’s “profile” is
particularly childish.

(a)
The SPLC labels me the “Architect of Militias”. Well, architecture
is a learned and honorable profession; and if by “Militias”
the SPLC has in mind “the Militia of the several States”
which the Constitution explicitly incorporates into its federal system,
then being an “Architect of Militias” would be a commendable
avocation for any American. Inasmuch as I have written and spoken extensively
in support of the revitalization of “the Militia of the several
States”, I am an advocate of that (and only that) course of action
in relation to “Militias”. But the distinction of being
an “Architect of Militias” in that sense rightly belongs,
not to me, but to the Founding Fathers—actually, to all Americans
of the pre-constitutional period who established (or “settled”,
as the terminology of that day had it) Militias in each of the Colonies
and then independent States, according to certain structural and operational
principles that carried over into the Articles of Confederation and
then into the Constitution, where those principles continue to apply,
unchanged, even today.

(b)
The SPLC’s “profile” calls me a “radical-right
thinker”. Well, momentarily putting modesty aside for purposes
of argument, I shall agree that I am a “thinker”—which
is better, I submit, than being a “non-thinker”. I shall
agree that I am “radical” (in the sense of the Latin noun
from which “radical” derives: that is, radix, meaning
“root”), because I always try to dig down to the root of
any problem into which I inquire—which is better, I submit, than
treating important questions superficially. And I shall agree that I
always try to be “right”, in the sense of correct, and radically
so—which is better, I submit, than being wrong. So, perhaps the
SPLC is actually complimenting me. If not, though, it has left the basis
of any criticism unknown, because it has not defined “radical-right
thinker”. This may be, however, because to the SPLC a “radical-right
thinker” is simply someone with whom the SPLC disagrees.

(c)
The SPLC then asserts that I supposedly consider the name “Department
of Homeland Security” as “a misnomer” for that agency
of the General Government. In fact, I am rather indifferent to the mere
name of the agency, but am concerned—as every American should
be concerned—with its purpose and the behavior of its personnel.
Now, if (as the SPLC apparently wants readers of “Meet the ‘Patriots’”
to believe) the Department of Homeland Security were “meant to
keep Americans safe” in the full constitutional sense,
the agency’s leaders and exponents would be advocating and working
for exactly the same goal as am I: namely, revitalization of “the
Militia of the several States” throughout the country, immediately
if not sooner. For, as the Second Amendment declares—as a conclusion
of constitutional fact and law which we ignore at our peril—“[a]
well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of
a free State”. Not optional, but necessary.

Neither
in the Second Amendment nor anywhere else in the Constitution or its
other Amendments is any other establishment declared to be “necessary
to the security of a free State” (or “necessary” for
any purpose, for that matter). Not even the “Army and Navy of
the United States”, which at least the Constitution explicitly
mentions, let alone a Department of Homeland Security about which the
Constitution is entirely silent. And only to “the Militia
of the several States” does the Constitution explicitly extend
the authority and responsibility “to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”—which litany
of powers summarizes the essential purposes of “homeland security”.
So, precisely how the Department of Homeland Security could
“keep Americans safe” in the absence of the very establishments
that the Constitution itself tells us are “necessary to the security
of a free State” is a mystery.

Not
a mystery, however, is that (to my knowledge) no one in any prominent
position of authority within the Department of Homeland Security is
promoting the revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”.
Rather, many of the agency’s personnel, and at high levels, are
apparently giving credence to hysterical propaganda emanating from such
unreliable sources as the SPLC that treats all advocacy of revitalizing
the Militia as somehow improper. Why this is happening is open to different
interpretations. Perhaps these people are simply not sufficiently conversant
with the Constitution to think the matter through to the correct conclusion—although,
inasmuch as they all have taken an “Oath or Affirmation, to support
th[e] Constitution”, they ought to know better.

Perhaps
it is merely a matter of the typical bias of bureaucrats in any central
government who tend to favor organizing “from the top down”,
with power concentrated in their own hands—and therefore reflexively
oppose establishments such as “the Militia of the several States”
which are organized “from the bottom up” with power concentrated
in the hands of the people, where the Constitution requires that power
to lodge. Whatever the subjective explanation for these individuals’
behavior, though, objectively the agency is not only (as the SPLC writes)
“bent on encroaching on the sovereignty of American citizens
and individual states”, but in fact and law is actually
“encroaching”. The Constitution tells us so. To
be sure, this problem could easily be corrected, if such as the SPLC
would simply get out of the way and let clear heads, thinking along
constitutional lines, prevail.

Advertisement

(d)
The SPLC’s “profile” of me next asserts that I “believe[
] an economic crisis is looming”. Looming?! The crisis
is here, right now, and in the view of most objective and knowledgeable
observers is becoming progressively worse day by day. Moreover, one
does not need to be a fortune-teller to predict that a major breakdown
of the monetary and banking systems will engender “massive social
and political unrest bordering on chaos” (as the SPLC quotes me,
I assume correctly), and that, if the American people do not put appropriate
preventive and curative measures into effect in the near future, such
chaos will drive this country in the direction of a para-military
police state. Such a sequence of events has happened in other countries
in recent times, and surely can happen here. See my commentary on NewsWithViews,
“Going to the Root of the
Problem”. In fact, in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina,
under conditions far less widespread and critical than would arise as
a result of a total nationwide banking and monetary collapse, brutal
police-state measures were imposed. See, e.g., William Norman
Grigg, “The
Greyhound Station Gulag”. So it has happened here, not so
long ago. And if it could happen once, somewhere in America, it can
happen again anywhere and even everywhere in America—if Americans
do not forefend it. And soon.

Because
time is running out. As a search of the Internet under “police
brutality” and similar entries will demonstrate with shocking
videos, crude police-state tactics are becoming increasingly common
in communities across this country where rogue “law-enforcement
officers” abuse and even savagely attack average Americans, and
in most cases walk away insufficiently punished for their misdeeds.
Needless to emphasize, this problem would not exist were the Militia
properly revitalized—because, in that event, all State and Local
police forces, sheriffs’ departments, and other law-enforcement
agencies would be sub-units of the Militia, and their members would
therefore be subject directly to discipline therein. But the Militia
have not been revitalized. The SPLC opposes revitalization of the Militia.
More than that, the SPLC stands in the forefront of those generating
increasingly shrill hysteria to the effect that anyone who uncompromisingly
supports the Second Amendment (as every American has a constitutional
duty to do) may be merely one heartbeat away from shooting some policeman—the
inevitable effect of which black propaganda must be to poison the minds
of the police and rationalize their application of heavy-handed tactics
against the citizenry. From which an observer might conclude that, objectively,
the SPLC is (to use its own term) an “enabler” of a burgeoning
police state.

One
must wonder on what basis the SPLC implicitly denies that a national
economic crisis is “looming”. One must also wonder why,
without marshaling any evidence in its behalf, the SPLC imagines itself
competent to criticize me (or anyone else) on that score, when—although
the SPLC is located in Montgomery, Alabama—it apparently is too
busy “profiling” “patriots” to pay any attention
to the massive crisis of financial robbery and political fraud that
has taken place in its own backyard in the city of Birmingham and the
county of Jefferson, Alabama. See Matt Taibbi, “Looting
Main Street”, Rolling Stone Magazine (31 March 2010),
posted at (15 April 2010). Can the SPLC possibly believe that, when
the full consequences from this rape of the citizenry finally become
manifest in those communities, extensive social and political unrest
will not result? Or could it possibly deny that such unrest would be
fully justified?

(e)
The SPLC’s “profile” then describes me as “[a]
longtime associate of tax protester Robert ‘Bob’ Schulz”.
In fact, although I have been acquainted with Mr. Schulz for many years,
I am not an “associate” of his. My copy of Webster’s
Dictionary defines “associate”as “one who shares
with another an enterprise, business, or action: a fellow worker: PARTNER”.
As everyone who follows my work knows, I have little to no interest
in “tax” questions, because I believe that this country
is in far more danger of an economic catastrophe from its inherently
unstable monetary and banking systems than from any form or level of
taxation. Actually, insofar as the word “associate” can
be loosely used in this regard at all, I feel that I am far more of
an “associate” of the SPLC than of Mr. Schulz, because the
SPLC has chosen to feature what I imagine will be a permanent “profile”
of me on its web site, which is far more advertising than Mr. Schulz
has ever offered to donate to me.

The
SPLC claims that “[a] year ago, [I] and Schulz co-organized a
meeting of 30 ‘freedom keepers’ at Jekyll Island in Georgia”.
In fact, I had no part in sponsoring or organizing that meeting, although
I did send Mr. Schulz a letter containing some sound advice. The text
of this letter appears in APPENDIX A to this commentary, and speaks
for itself. I believe that Mr. Schulz published this letter on one of
his web sites. Later, Mr. Schulz described me as being “in absentia”
at his Jekyll Island conference. I brought the inaccuracy of that description
to his attention in an e-mail, the text of which appears in APPENDIX
B to this commentary. I do not recall whether Mr. Schulz ever published
the clarification expressed in my e-mail. In any event, as documented
in this correspondence, the actual situation concerning the Jekyll Island
conference is rather different from the fantasy woven by the SPLC.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

(f)
As its sole support for the title “Architect of Militias”
which it bestows on me, the SPLC’s “profile” states
that I have “plans to establish militias in all 50 States”.
Now, as the SPLC knows—or should know, if its researchers had
read my book Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume
One, The Nation in Arms (2007) and my many commentaries posted
at <www.newswithviews.com>
and republished on other sites—I advocate the revitalization of
“the Militia of the several States” in each State pursuant
to State legislation, as the Constitution requires. As I am not
a resident of “all 50 States”, and am not a member of any
State’s legislature, however, I have no ability whatsoever personally
“to establish militias in all 50 States”. If that
goal is achieved—and I certainly hope it will be—it will
come about as the result of actions taken by the citizens and the legislatures
in those States to fulfill the requirement of the Constitution that
such Militias exist. In addition, nowhere have I ever even advocated,
let alone tried to establish, some “private militia”. In
fact, I generally discourage anyone who asks me about the subject from
becoming involved with any “private militia”. For part three
click below.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four
degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has
practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme
Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases
leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,
Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America
v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on
the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors,
may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their
employment.

He has written numerous monographs
and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county.
His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces
of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States
Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American
monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under
a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER:
A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash
of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

In
addition, the “timeline” is highly selective. And perhaps
revealingly so. At no point does it acknowledge the possible involvement
in any of listed events, or in other events of that kind, of rogue governmental
agencies or agents, agents provocateurs, dubious informants, private special-interest
groups, or other individuals or groups...